Where Have All the Protestants Gone?

NOR ^ | January 2006 | Thomas Storck

[NYer]

Has anyone noticed the almost complete disappearance of Protestants from our nation? "What!" I can hear my readers exclaim, "Storck has really gone off his rocker this time. Why, just down the street there's an Assembly of God church and two or three Baptist churches and the Methodists and so on. My cousin just left the Catholic Church to become a Protestant and my niece just married one. Moreover, evangelical Protestants have many media outlets of their own and they have great influence in the Bush Administration. They're everywhere." All this, of course, is true. Except that for some time, they no longer call themselves Protestants, but simply Christians, and increasingly they've gotten Catholics to go along with their terminology.

I recall over 10 years ago when I was a lector at Mass, for the prayer of the faithful I was supposed to read a petition that began, "That Catholics and Christians…." Of course, I inserted the word "other" before "Christians," but I doubt very many in the congregation would even have noticed had I not done so. Just the other day I saw on a Catholic website an article about a Protestant adoption agency that refused to place children with Catholic parents. The headline referred not to a Protestant adoption agency but to a Christian one. And how often do we hear of Christian bookstores or Christian radio stations or Christian schools, when everyone should know they are Protestant ones?

Now, what is wrong with this? Well, it should be obvious to any Catholic -- but probably isn't. Are only Protestants Christians? Are we Catholics not Christians, indeed the true Christians? About 30 years ago, Protestants, especially evangelicals, began to drop the term Protestant and call themselves simply Christians as a not too subtle means of suggesting that they are the true and real Christians, rather than simply the children of the breakaway Protestant revolt of the 16th century. This shift in Protestant self-identification has taken on increasingly dramatic proportions. A recent Newsweek survey (Aug. 29-Sept. 5, 2005) found that, between 1990 and 2001, the number of Americans who consider themselves "Christian" (no denomination) increased by 1,120 percent, while the number of those who self-identify as "Protestant" decreased by 270 percent.

But perhaps I am getting too worked up over a small matter. After all, are not Protestants also Christians? Yes, I do not deny that. But usually we call something by its most specific name.

Protestants are theists too, but it would surely sound odd if we were to refer to their radio stations and bookstores as theistic radio stations and theistic bookstores. Language, in order to be useful, must convey human thought and concepts in as exact a way as it can. And, in turn, our thoughts and concepts should reflect reality. As Josef Pieper noted, "if the word becomes corrupted, human existence will not remain unaffected and untainted."

Moreover, words often convey more than simple concepts. A certain word may seem only to portray reality, but in fact it does more. It adds a certain overtone and connotation. Thus, it is not a small matter whether we speak of "gays" or of homosexuals. The former term was chosen specifically to inculcate acceptance of an unnatural and immoral way of life. When I was an Episcopalian, I was careful never to speak of the Catholic Church, but of the Roman Catholic Church, as a means of limiting the universality of her claims. I always called Episcopal ministers priests, again as a means of affirming that such men really were priests, in opposition to Leo XIII's definitive judgment that Anglican orders are invalid and thus that they are in no sense priests. Perhaps because of these early experiences, I am very aware of the uses of language to prejudge and control arguments, and I am equally careful now never to call Episcopal ministers priests or refer to one as Father So-and-So. And I think we should likewise not go along with the evangelical Protestant attempt to usurp the name Christian for themselves. They are Protestants, and public discourse should not be allowed to obscure that fact.

Apparently, though, it is the case that some Protestants call themselves Christians, not out of a desire to usurp the term, but out of an immense ignorance of history. That is, they ignore history to such an extent that they really don't understand that they are Protestants. Knowing or caring little about what came before them, they act as if their nicely bound Bibles had fallen directly from Heaven and anyone could simply become a Christian with no reference to past history, ecclesiology, or theology. The period of time between the conclusion of the New Testament book of Acts and the moment that they themselves "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Savior" means nothing. Even Luther or Calvin or John Wesley mean little to them, since they can pick up their Bibles and start Christianity over again any time they want. These souls may call themselves simply Christians in good faith, but they are largely ignorant of everything about Church history. They do not understand that Jesus Christ founded a Church, and that He wishes His followers to join themselves to that Church at the same time as they join themselves to Him. In fact, one implies and involves the other, since in Baptism we are incorporated in Christ and made members of His Church at the same time.

So let us not go along with the widespread practice of calling our separated brethren simply Christians. They are Protestants. Let us begin again to use that term. It is precise. It implies Catholic doctrine in the sense that it suggests that such people are in protest against the Church. Moreover, it forces them to define themselves in terms of, rather than independently of, the One True Church. And if we do resume referring to our separated brethren as Protestants, perhaps a few of them might even be surprised enough to ask us why -- and then, behold, a teachable moment!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

It says they're brothers and sisters. Show me where it says they were born of Mary. No speculation please. The onus is on you.

That's what I thought.

[Titanites]

That's what I thought.

You should because it's the same question I asked in 1638.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

You're like the guy who was convinced he was dead. No matter what anyone said he wouldn't believe he was alive. Finally one day somebody pricked him with a pin in the arem and he bled. The guy then said "Good Lord, dead men bleed after all".

[Invincibly Ignorant]

arm not arem

[Titanites]

It was better with arem.

[SoothingDave]

Clearly the idea that "brother" among the Semitic peoples can only mean male siblings from the same uterus is wrong.

God uses the word cousin when He means cousin.

Gen 14:12And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
13And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
14And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

So God could have said Lot was Abram's nephew, but used "brother" because God was in error when He inspired this Scripture?

Why do you even pretend to be engaging in a reasoned debate, why the farce that you are a Biblical defender when you brazenly ignore Scripture when it is posted to you.

Dave, your soul is in great peril.

I'll take that under advisement. Just as soon as you address the arguments presented in 1348, and 1602. Why do you shrink from discussing the Bible?

SD

[SoothingDave]

It already says brother and sisters. Post your NT writings where it says they're not really brother and sisters. No speculation please. The onus on you.

Hey II, it is the Sola Scriptura people who have to prove their claims from Scripture. We can (and have, multiple times) make the argument that the text allows our interpretation.

SD

[Full Court]

Me:The Bible says Joseph knew her in the sexual sense

You:No, it does not. You've been asked to show where this is stated in scripture, but you can't because it's not there.

I have posted it time and time again. But you would rather not believe it.

Matthew 1:24  Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25  And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

[Full Court]

Since you posted your snippet to show how women are owned by men...

let me repeat myself to you once again. I did not say that women are owned by men. I said that the woman was created for the man.

I posted Scripture to back up my contention.

Woman was created FOR man. Eve was created to HELP Adam.

Not the other way around.

Nothing you posted since has changed that or can change that fact.

My objection to you making false claims about what I originally said remains.

[Full Court]

All Scripture is given by God, that's the point, whether you like it or not.

[Full Court]

Generally, the meaning of scripture is not clear outside of the entire deposit of faith that abides in the Church

That is a lie from the pit of Hell.

1 Corinthians 2:9  
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit:
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

[InterestedQuestioner]

"It's not for "relegion." It's for the Lord Jesus Christ against a bunch of catholics who would rather call Jesus a sinner than admit that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters."

Perhaps rather than compliment you on your zeal and your passion for your religion, I should have written that I respect your passion for your faith in Jesus Christ, which is the respect that I had hoped to convey to you.


"God uses the word cousin when He means cousin."

Full Court, the person using the word here is not God, it's the translator. He/she is translating a word that does not have an exact equivalent in English. In my reading of the Scripture, it appears that the word being translated into English as brother and sister is an approximation. There appears to have been some wiggle room in the original language for the type of relation being denoted. They just weren't being as specific as we are in English, they have a word who's range of meaning includes brother but also includes other relations besides brother.


"It's not for "relegion." It's for the Lord Jesus Christ against a bunch of catholics who would rather call Jesus a sinner than admit that the Word of God clearly shows that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters."

If I'm understanding you correctly, Full Court, the question here isn't so much whether Jesus had brothers; it's whether Mary had other children. Can you identify the individuals that you believe to have been Mary's children?

Kind Regards,

-iq

[annalex]

Regarding both Matthew 1:25 and 2 Timothy 3:16, I showed you what the scripture says and does not say. Yes, it is from God.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Hey II, it is the Sola Scriptura people who have to prove their claims from Scripture. We can (and have, multiple times) make the argument that the text allows our interpretation.

This from the guy who would be perfectly fine if one of the Catholic theories regarding Jesus' brothers and sisters (bretheren) turned out to be true that they were his cousins.

What do you care about the text anyway? Delving into the area of sola scriptura in an attempt to disprove a protestant sola scriptura contention? I would assume and have heard you argue in the past that your tradition is enough.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

By the way, I've never seen you post at 8:30 in the evening. :-)

[Full Court]

Full Court, the person using the word here is not God, it's the translator.

If you do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God then we have no common ground to discuss issue from.

I have studied the history of the Catholic church and her actions, so I know that there is no chance at all that she is a correct body of authority.

The Word of God however is. Yet you reject it.

Hebrews 4:12  
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Romans 10:17  
So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.

John 12:48  
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words,
hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken,
the same shall judge him in the last day.

[Full Court]

Well, you are wrong already. Mary and Joseph abstained throughout Mary's pregnancy and Jesus was born of a virgin.

I was speaking of after the birth of Jesus.

[Full Court]

Full Court, the question here isn't so much whether Jesus had brothers; it's whether Mary had other children.

Matthew 12:46  
¶While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

47  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

48  But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

49  And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

[Full Court]

So, still wish to use 5:13 as some sort of proof text of easy knowledge of eternal salvation?

Yes, absolutely. Because God says that we may know. It isn't "you might be able to know."

Hebrews 10:7  ¶Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8  Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

9  Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11  And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12  But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13  From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14  For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

[wmfights]

Where have all the Protestants gone?
____________________________________________
We went to church, we studied the SCRIPTURES, we prayed and meditated.

We did not resist the HOLY SPIRIT in guiding us and convicting us in our sin.

We did NOT give a magesterium (made up of weak and fallible human beings) the power to determine how SCRIPTURE should be interpreted.

We constantly check to see that what our preachers are saying is SCRIPTURAL.

Full Court: I love your posts and tenacity in the face of blind opposition.

GOD BLESS